Islam, Charles Darwin and the denial of science
A growing number of biology and medical students are rejecting the very basis of their chosen subject in favour of creationism.

'I have had plenty of verbal complaints from undergraduates that I am demeaning religion,’ says Steve Jones, pictured at the Grant Museum in UCL Photo: RICHARD CANNON

A few years ago I had an operation to repair a hernia. In that I shared the experience of about one in four British men of my age, in whom a section of intestine breaks through the body wall to form an unpleasant, and potentially dangerous, bulge in the groin. The job was done quickly and efficiently by a surgeon who had, no doubt, done it hundreds of times before.

But why is that procedure needed so often? The story began long ago, when our ancestors were fish. In those happy days the testes were deep within the main body mass, close to the liver (as they still are in our marine cousins). They were connected to the outside world by a pair of straight tubes. Then came the move on to land and the shift from cold blood to warm. That had lots of advantages, but faced the unfortunate male with a problem, for the delicate machinery for making sperm works best at low temperatures, perhaps to reduce the number of errors made as DNA is copied.

The solution was a messy compromise in which the testes migrated south and emerged in their present form in an elegant external sac (which makes them, as I never fail to point out to students, both literally and figuratively the coolest part of any man’s body). To make the journey, the tubes had to loop around some of the bones of the pubic girdle and to pass close to the surface of the body to make a weak point where, now and again, the intestine makes a break for freedom.

Hernias, then, are the result of the imperfect process of evolution, of the slow accumulation of successful mistakes and of the inevitable pressure of compromise. A surgeon may not need to know that and the first hernia operations were carried out well before The Origin of Species by people who had no idea why the problem arose; and (although I doubt it) perhaps my own doctor was equally ignorant.

Now, though, we have evolution, the grammar of biology. More and more, students do not like it. I no longer teach medics but I do have a lot of contact with biology undergraduates and go to many schools and to student conferences. Over the past decade there has grown up a determined denial by many people of the truths of modern science.

At University College London we have numbers of Islamic students, almost all dedicated, hard-working and able. Some, unfortunately, refuse to accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds, as do some of their Christian fellows; and just a couple of years ago a Turkish anti-evolution speaker (a Dr Babuna, as I remember) was invited on to campus to give an account of why The Origin is wrong. He was the scion of an extraordinary – and very rich – anti-evolution organisation based in his native land that has sent out thousands of lavishly illustrated creationist books and has linked Darwinism to Nazism and worse.

Much of their propaganda has been lifted from Christian fundamentalism and there is a certain irony in where it has ended up. I have had plenty of verbal complaints from undergraduates of both persuasions that I am demeaning religion, while others ask that they be excused lectures on my subject, or simply fail to turn up.

In schools things are worse: some kids will walk out rather than listen. Their teachers can be just as bad. The most virulent attack I have had in recent years came from a physics teacher in a respected north London state school, who – to the embarrassment of his colleagues – barracked my talk on evolutionary biology with repeated statements that Darwinism contradicted the laws of thermodynamics. I was forced, uncharacteristically, to be rude.

Anyone, of course, is free to believe whatever they wish. But why train to become a biologist, or a doctor, when you deny the very foundations of your subject? For a biology student to refuse to accept the fact of evolution is equivalent to choosing to do a degree in English without believing in grammar, or in physics with a rooted objection to gravity: it makes no sense at all. The same is true for doctors. How can you put a body right with no idea as to why it is liable to go wrong?

I have tried asking students at quite what point they find my lectures unacceptable: is it the laws of inheritance, mutation, the genes that protect against malaria or cancer, the global shifts in human skin colour, Neanderthal DNA, or the inherited differences between apes and men? Each point is, they say, very interesting – but when I point out that they have just accepted the whole truth of Darwin’s theory they deny that frightful thought. Some take instant umbrage, although a few, thank goodness, do leave the room with a pensive look.

The problem is not with any particular belief system but with belief itself. Sir Francis Bacon once said that: “If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” In other words, if you are absolutely sure that you are right whatever the evidence, you will end up in trouble; but if you are always willing to change your mind when the facts change you will emerge with a robust view of how the world works.

I sometimes wonder how many of those who pour their inane opinions about creationism into their young pupils’ ears ever consider the damage they are doing; not to my science, but to their religion. Why, when a student begins to learn the simple and convincing facts, rather than the fantasies, about how life emerged, should he believe anything else that his pastor, his rabbi or his imam has told him? Why build a philosophy based on fixed untruths, when we have so many truths, and so many things still to find out?

The growing tide of fact‑denial is a statement of failure, not by students but by their teachers, up to and including those at university level. We do our best, I think, but faced with schools or faith groups that get their ignorance in first, we seem to be fighting a losing battle. Just a few weeks ago I gave a talk to sixth-formers entitled, provocatively, “Why evolution is right and creationism is wrong”. We had a vigorous discussion at the end in which one lad got me on the back foot by insisting, rightly, that the whole of science is based on uncertainty and that I could not, as a scientist, use a phrase such as “Why evolution is right”. As a compromise I suggested that I would henceforth call the talk: “Why evolution is probably right, and creationism is certainly wrong”. Somehow, I think that will not solve the problem.

Steve Jones was until recently Professor of Genetics at University College London and is President of the Association for Science Education

Qtec

01-23-2012, 04:10 AM

When you post things like this it freaks the Creationists out.

They have no answer.

Q

cushioncrawler

01-23-2012, 05:30 AM

In 1921 over 70% of chicago area male bizness and ministry etc peeple didnt beleev in God, ie didnt beleev in creation -- and modern shit-questionnaires suggest that only about 20% of the population dont beleev in God -- bullshit.
mac.

Qtec

01-23-2012, 05:39 AM

There was a survey that showed that 90% of Afghanis had never heard of 9/11!

I know thousands of people who believe in creation and a Creator ... and none of them denies evolution being real.

Now, if you want to look at what ideology takes massive leaps of faith based on junk science ... and I know you don't, even though you will swear that you do ... it is Darwinists.

Piltdown man?

Peppered moths?

Darwin's finches?

If Darwin were alive today he would be livid over what is being done in his name.

Qtec

01-23-2012, 05:27 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know thousands of people who believe in creation and a Creator ... and<u> none of them denies evolution being real</u></div></div>

Really!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today, the American Scientific Affiliation and the UK-based Christians in Science recognize that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Christian belief that God "created the universe."[4][5][6] <u>Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,</u>[7][8][9] which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Literalist creationists[10] believe that <u>evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.</u>[11] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative </span></div></div>

Did you actually read the post?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The growing tide of fact‑denial</span> is a statement of failure, not by students but by their teachers, up to and including those at university level. We do our best, I think, but faced with schools or faith groups that get their ignorance in first, we seem to be fighting a losing battle. Just a few weeks ago I gave a talk to sixth-formers entitled, provocatively, “Why evolution is right and creationism is wrong”. We had a vigorous discussion at the end in which one lad got me on the back foot by insisting, rightly, that the whole of science is based on uncertainty and that I could not, as a scientist, use a phrase such as “Why evolution is right”. As a compromise I suggested that I would henceforth call the talk: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Why evolution is probably right, and creationism is certainly wrong”. Somehow, I think that will not solve the problem. </span> </div></div>

The Brits have more sense.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A few months ago we wrote about a UK Proposal To Ban Creationism. We are pleased to report that it appears to have been successful. Well, the original proposal wasn’t for an outright ban, just a ban on government funding, and that has been achieved.

In the Guardian (formerly the Manchester Guardian), which has probably the third-largest circulation of all British newspapers, we read Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists. It’s sub-titled “Free schools that teach ‘intelligent design’ as science will lose funding.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.

The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations”. </div></div>

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Creation Science Movement</span> is the oldest creationist movement in the world; founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement by leading members of the Victoria Institute who were concerned at the scientific, ethical and theological consequences <span style='font-size: 14pt'>that belief in Evolution </span>brings to society. </div></div>

eg8r

01-23-2012, 06:06 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative </div></div>Your lack of intelligence gets to be quite boring around here and is probably why I keep referring to you as the village idiot. Christians do not believe man came from apes, or in another thread here where someone said man came from fish. The Bible is quite clear that he made man, so a belief in macroevolution will never sit well with a Christian. On the other hand, I have never met a christian that disagreed with microevolution when the difference between the two were explained.

It is people like you that try to stir the pot by generalizing this topic to cause an argument based on what you think "Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on".

eg8r

Qtec

01-23-2012, 06:46 PM

Here is what the CSM says. nutjobs (https://www.csm.org.uk/whoweare.php)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What else does CSM do? A pamphlet on different subjects giving evidence of Creation is published every other month together with the Creation Journal which carries up-to-the-minute news and comment. These pamphlets form an information resource on the Creation/evolution issue. One of our pamphlets shows how Creation is the foundation of the Gospel (249) while others trace Creation in Genesis (260) and Isaiah (243). Others are critical of aspects of evolution theory such as alleged vestigial organs (258) and supposed intermediate forms such as Archaeopteryx (76) <u>and ape-men</u> (151, 234). Many pamphlets consider particular creatures and show how they <span style='font-size: 14pt'>could not possibly have evolved. These include whales (114) where the design of the mouth of the young whale fitting into the mother enables it to be suckled while at sea. The Bombardier Beetle (233) had to have a perfectly functioning explosive defence or it would have blown itself up! The Palisade moth (248), birds' feathers (255), bats' sonar systems (247), the bee's informative dance (264), and butterflies' metamorphoses (257) could not have evolved. Other pamphlets consider the so-called chemical evolution of life (267). Evidence is cited that the universe is only thousands of years old</span> (265). Measurements of salinity of the oceans (221) show they are young. The eruption of Mount St. Helens (252) in 1980 produced sediments which evolutionary geologists would normally interpret as taking very long periods f time to form. Three distinct lines of experimental evidence from scientists of repute in Australia, America and Russia strongly suggest that the speed at which light travels has diminished with time (262, 256). This affects the radiometric dating of rocks (207) and the time taken for light to reach us from distant galaxies. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It indicates that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Scientific observations support the genealogies (219) <span style="color: #990000">in the Bible, a book of amazingly accurate science </span>(254), that life was created and did not evolve and that Adam was created in the beginning.</span> </div></div>

This is the BS that creationist Evangelical/M Bachmann types etc want to force on kids.

Yes, you do come from something that lived in the sea, everything does.

Do you know that the Earth originally had no oxygen? Do you know where that oxygen came from?

Its not me that wants to force my religious beliefs on others. Its not me saying myth is equal to science.

Here's a question ... let's test your logic ... how did the Earth come to be?

LWW

01-24-2012, 05:02 AM

Why is it that I ask you a question and you cut and paste a spoon fed answer into a new thread?

How about you simply man up for once in your life.

eg8r

01-24-2012, 08:38 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is what the CSM says.</div></div>OK, so you refer to a pamphlet in response to my post where I refer to actual people. Again, drop your propaganda and go talk to people. Ask them if they truly believe they come from a fish (skip the monkey bit). Then ask them if they believe there is more than one type of dog, but that all types of dogs might have come from a single type. I gaurantee you will get more people to buy into micro before you ever get anyone to believe your religion of macro.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its not me that wants to force my religious beliefs on others. Its not me saying myth is equal to science.

</div></div>The Big Bang Theory IS your religion.

eg8r

Qtec

01-24-2012, 10:07 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so you refer to a pamphlet in response to my post where I refer to actual people. </div></div>

So you know the wrong people, so what. This org has millions of believers.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ask them if they truly believe they come from a fish</div></div>

This has nothing to do with the big Bang. This is about fact over fiction and how the Earth is the way it is now.

Qg

eg8r

01-24-2012, 10:30 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you know the wrong people, so what. This org has millions of believers.
</div></div>And you have yet to meet the very first one and find out what they believe in respect to macro and micro evolution. Heck you have yet to point out that you even know the difference.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What do they say? What do you think?
</div></div>In light of my recent travels I believe it to be rubbish to think we come from a fish.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has nothing to do with the big Bang. This is about fact over fiction and how the Earth is the way it is now.
</div></div>Actually this is about fiction over fiction because neither side is capable of proving any fact and both sides are relying on a great amount of faith.

eg8r

cushioncrawler

01-24-2012, 02:40 PM

Early on a human baby haz gills and tail. This would indeed be hard to proov -- to someone who haz no sight and no hearing -- and of course impossible to proov to a Christian.
mac.

And i dont beleev in The Big Bang.
And america the greight iz going down in ate.

LWW

01-24-2012, 04:48 PM

Do you believe the big bang theory?

cushioncrawler

01-24-2012, 06:36 PM

No i dont beleev in the THE Big Bang.
To me THE insinuates the one and only -- and that karnt be korrekt. There were are and will be an infinite number of big bangs.

I am not even happy with the idea of THE meening our partikular big bang -- koz i am not happy with the concept of BIG BANG.
I hav seen a good arguement that it aint a bang -- that its a continuous process -- a continuous eruption.

I am happyr calling it OUR ERUPTION -- to distinguish it from others. Or even OUR CREATION.

The whole question of big bang goze with the whole question of the universe, or our universe, or universes.
mac.

Its like the harbour new years fireworks. There iz a big bang hi up in the sky, and lots of colored dots fly out in all direktions in a spherical pattern, and we are on one of thoze dots, and we call THE BIG BANG. When it iz A SMALL BANG. And az i sayd, it might not be a bang it might be an eruption -- A SMALL ERUPTION -- u kood kall this A SMALL CREATION.
mac.

This is the last time I answer you if you don't behave and start acting like an adult, and not like a spotty 14 yr old with illusions of grandeur or a senile old fart living in his basement on 10 forums at the same time and has only time for one liners.

Boy, that was a long sentence. According to the Palin theory, I am super intelligent........LOL

Q

LWW

01-26-2012, 06:25 AM

Yes, I have a point ... and a simple yes or no is all that I need.

It is obvious you have zero actual intent of having an adult discussion ... but in the name of fairness, I'll give you another chance to answer.

Are you scouring the web to find out what the regime tells you that your "OPINION" is on this? </div></div>

Bump for the snoop. </div></div>

Bump for the snoop.

Qtec

02-02-2012, 04:35 AM

LOL

I detect you frothing at the mouth. LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You asked how the Earth was created. I showed you.

Do you have a point? </div></div>

Now you ignore my answer and go off topic.

Was there a Big Bang is irrelevant.

Your infantile name calling is getting to be boring.

Act your age.

Q

LWW

02-02-2012, 05:00 AM

So ... you don't know if you believe in the big bang or not until the regime tells you?

Qtec

02-02-2012, 05:19 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So ... you don't know if you believe in the big bang or not until the regime tells you? </div></div>

You are a moron.

Yes, you are absolutely right, I'm waiting for Obama to tell me what I think.........dumba$$. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Yes, you are absolutely right, I'm waiting for Obama to tell me what I think.........dumba$$. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

So you make a post telling lww that the name calling is getting boring and then in your very next post you start calling names. LOL way to go qtip.

eg8r

LWW

02-02-2012, 05:18 PM

So do you believe the BBT or not?

LWW

02-02-2012, 05:18 PM

Did you actually expect anything else?

LWW

02-04-2012, 03:45 AM

Bump for the snoop.

Qtec

02-04-2012, 05:53 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you make a post telling lww that the name calling is getting boring and then in your very next post you start calling names. LOL way to go qtip.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You asked how the Earth was created. I showed you.

Do you have a point? </div></div>

Now you ignore my answer and go off topic.

Was there a Big Bang is irrelevant.

Your infantile name calling is getting to be boring.

Act your age.

Q

</div></div>

He is stuck on year 10. St.

Qtec

02-05-2012, 12:53 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, how is it that you make fun of "CREATIONISTS" when you yourself believe in creation? </div></div>

Because they are two different things maybe!

There is plenty of scientific evidence pointing to a BB. OTOH, there is absolutely NO evidence that there even is a Creator, or that he made man.

This topic is about the denial of science based on myths.

To quote eg8r.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christians do not believe man came from apes, or in another thread here where someone said man came from fish. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Bible is quite clear that he made man</span>, so a belief in macroevolution will never sit well with a Christian. </div></div>

What did the first post say?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Islam, Charles Darwin and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the denial of science</span>
A growing number of biology and medical students are rejecting the very basis of their chosen subject in favour of creationism.

A few years ago I had an operation to repair a hernia.

.....But why is that procedure needed so often? The story began long ago, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>when our ancestors were fish.</span> </div></div>

How the Earth was created (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1-F4lxJPo0)

Q

LWW

02-05-2012, 04:53 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, how is it that you make fun of "CREATIONISTS" when you yourself believe in creation? </div></div>

Because they are two different things maybe!

There is plenty of scientific evidence pointing to a BB. OTOH, there is absolutely NO evidence that there even is a Creator, or that he made man.

Q </div></div>

The BBT itself is evidence of a Creator.

The BBT was dismissed, until Hubble's evidence made arguing against it stupid, because it required a miracle.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BBT was dismissed, until Hubble's evidence made arguing against it stupid, because it required a miracle. </div></div>

What a load....!!!!!!!!!!! [ Where do you get this stuff from? Rush Limbaugh's science page?

What a load....!!!!!!!!!!! [ Where do you get this stuff from? Rush Limbaugh's science page?

Q...</div></div>

Actually I am quite learned in astronomy/optics/physics ... and I bother to learn, as opposed to your love for being spoon fed your "OPINION."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications, most notably, the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "creation out of nothing"). In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics</span>; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[87] <span style='font-size: 17pt'>This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.</span></div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies[47] which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. These are sometimes called "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory". </div></div>

Anything else I can help you to understand? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Religious_interpretations)

If prior to the moment of creation when space, mass, energy,height, depth, width, and even time itself did not exist ... and then in less than an instant it all did ... doesn't qualify as a miracle, then what does?

And, how can you have creation without a Creator?

Back to your stupefying ignorance of the scientific history of your own land:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/people/Lemaitre.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.</span>

Lemaitre began his own scientific career at the College of Engineering in Louvain in 1913. He was forced to leave after a year, however, to serve in the Belgian artillery during World War I. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>When the war was over, he entered Maison Saint Rombaut, a seminary of the Archdiocese of Malines, where, in his leisure time, he read mathematics and science. After his ordination in 1923, Lemaitre studied math and science at Cambridge University, where one of his professors, Arthur Eddington, was the director of the observatory,</span>

For his research at Cambridge, Lemaitre reviewed the general theory of relativity. As with Einstein's calculations ten years earlier, Lemaitre's calculations showed that the universe had to be either shrinking or expanding. But while Einstein imagined an unknown force – a cosmological constant – which kept the world stable, Lemaitre decided that the universe was expanding. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>He came to this conclusion after observing the reddish glow, known as a red shift, surrounding objects outside of our galaxy. If interpreted as a Doppler effect, this shift in color meant that the galaxies were moving away from us.</span> Lemaitre published his calculations and his reasoning in Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. Few people took notice. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>That same year he talked with Einstein in Brussels, but the latter, unimpressed, said, "Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable."</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>It was Einstein's own grasp of physics, however, that soon came under fire. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's systematic observations of other galaxies confirmed the red shift. In England the Royal Astronomical Society gathered to consider this seeming contradiction between visual observation and the theory of relativity. Sir Arthur Eddington volunteered to work out a solution. When Lemaitre read of these proceedings, he sent Eddington a copy of his 1927 paper. The British astronomer realized that Lemaitre had bridged the gap between observation and theory.</span> At Eddington's suggestion, the Royal Astronomical Society published an English translation of Lemaitre's paper in its Monthly Notices of March 1931.

In January 1933, both Lemaitre and Einstein traveled to California for a series of seminars. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."</span>

Most scientists who read Lemaitre's paper accepted that the universe was expanding, at least in the present era, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but they resisted the implication that the universe had a beginning. They were used to the idea that time had gone on forever. It seemed illogical that infinite millions of years had passed before the universe came into existence. Eddington himself wrote in the English journal Nature that the notion of a beginning of the world was "repugnant."</span>

The Belgian priest responded to Eddington with a letter published in Nature on May 9, 1931. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Lemaitre suggested that the world had a definite beginning in which all its matter and energy were concentrated at one point:</span>

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time.</span></div></div>

So, as I claimed, mainstream physics ... and their fawning spoon fed atheist fan boys ... denied the BBT because it required a Creator.

Then, as soon as the theory worked out to be true and passed every test, the same mainstream physics community ... and their fawning spoon fed atheist fan boys ... embraced the BBT as "PROOF" there is no Creator.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lww</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BBT itself is evidence of a Creator. </div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: qtip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really? got a link for that? LOL
</div></div>Herein lies the difference between you and the rest of us. We look at the data provided and use our own brains to think about it and come to our own conclusion. You wait for someone else to do all the thinking and the pick through the different ideas to find one you think you can agree with. It is sad.

In order for the BBT to happen there must have been some things already in place. You can start with, "what created the big bang?" What started it all in motion?

eg8r

cushioncrawler

02-06-2012, 03:00 PM

It duznt work like that. New findings only create new bigger questions. Thats how science works.
mac.

LWW

02-06-2012, 05:09 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lww</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BBT itself is evidence of a Creator. </div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: qtip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really? got a link for that? LOL
</div></div>Herein lies the difference between you and the rest of us. We look at the data provided and use our own brains to think about it and come to our own conclusion. You wait for someone else to do all the thinking and the pick through the different ideas to find one you think you can agree with. It is sad.

In order for the BBT to happen there must have been some things already in place. You can start with, "what created the big bang?" What started it all in motion?

eg8r </div></div>

By definition ... it had to be a supernatural event, being that this universe did not exist.

To date science can only guess ... and the BBT itself is only a lame effort to describe what happened.

Most people buy into the sci-fi movie description of a single point explosion. what the actual science dictates is that the bang happened from everywhere all at once.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Islam, Charles Darwin and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the denial of science</span>
A growing number of biology and medical students are <span style='font-size: 14pt'>rejecting the very basis of their chosen subject in favour of<u> creationism.</u></span> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Myth/Religion V Science</span>.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hernias, then, are the result of the imperfect process of <u>evolution</u>, of the slow accumulation of <u>successful mistakes</u> and of the inevitable pressure of compromise. A surgeon may not need to know that and the first hernia operations were carried out well before The Origin of Species by people who had no idea why the problem arose; and (although I doubt it) perhaps my own doctor was equally ignorant.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Now, though, we have evolution, the grammar of biology. More and more, students do not like it.</span> I no longer teach medics but I do have a lot of contact with biology undergraduates and go to many schools and to student conferences.<span style='font-size: 23pt'> Over the past decade there has grown up <u>a determined denial by many people of the truths of modern science.</u></span> </div></div>

This is not about the BB or what was before. This is about fact over fiction!

The FACT is, we were not made in any image. The fact that we exist today with our superious intelligence [ compared to other animals] depended on a huge rage of possibly unique circumstances.

After a series of extinction level events on Earth, our ancestors got the chance to evolve and intelligence became a useful tool for survival, that's all.

Now we think <u>we are something special</u> [ and we are ], but <u>for the wrong reasons</u>.

Q

eg8r

02-07-2012, 09:36 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The FACT is, we were not made in any image. </div></div>LOL, you need to look up the definition of fact. Again, you are choosing someone else's studies to be your religion yet you show us here that those who are the best and brightest coming up through the ranks in these fields are choosing not to believe your religion.

eg8r

Qtec

02-08-2012, 02:30 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you need to look up the definition of fact.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Again, you are choosing someone else's studies to be your religion </span></div></div>

Do you know how stupid that statement is? Of course you don't because you believe.
You don't <u>know</u> and you don't <u>want to know</u> because facts just get in the way of what you believe!

Get it?

My viewpoint does not arrive from a religious belief, yours does.

Q

eg8r

02-08-2012, 09:32 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My viewpoint does not arrive from a religious belief, yours does.
</div></div>Do you know how stupid that statement is? Your viewpoint is your religious belief. It is coming from others who have bought into that religion because they have no way to proof their point of view. It is your religion, like it or not.

eg8r

LWW

02-08-2012, 06:48 PM

You are the worst religious fanatic, by far, in this conversation ... and insist upon forcing your belief system onto everyone else.

Qtec

02-08-2012, 11:43 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My viewpoint does not arrive from a religious belief, yours does.
</div></div>Do you know how stupid that statement is? Your viewpoint is your religious belief. It is coming from others who have bought into that religion because they have no way to proof their point of view. It is your religion, like it or not.

eg8r </div></div>

Which brings us back to the original post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The problem is not with any particular belief system but with belief itself. Sir Francis Bacon once said that: “If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” In other words, if you are absolutely sure that you are right <span style='font-size: 14pt'>whatever the evidence,</span> you will end up in trouble; but if you are always willing to change your mind when the facts change you will emerge with a robust view of how the world works. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have tried asking students at quite <u>what point they find my lectures unacceptable</u>: is it the laws of inheritance, mutation, the genes that protect against malaria or cancer, the global shifts in human skin colour, Neanderthal DNA, or the inherited differences between apes and men? Each point is, they say, very interesting – but when I point out that they have just accepted the whole truth of Darwin’s theory <u>they deny that frightful thought.</u> </div></div>

Why do they deny the facts?

Its because they believe something else.

Q

LWW

02-09-2012, 05:02 AM

It's you that is in denial of the scientific facts.

eg8r

02-09-2012, 08:56 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In other words, if you are absolutely sure that you are right whatever the evidence, you will end up in trouble;</div></div>Which is exactly where you are, trouble. A creator is the only explanation and you know but sit there with your eyes closed, hands over your ears and mumble, "It can't be true, it can't be true".

eg8r

Qtec

02-09-2012, 10:59 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In other words, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>if you are absolutely sure that you are right whatever the evidence</span>, you will end up in trouble;</div></div>

LOL and your belief is that the beginnings of time started from nothing and you are absolutely sure of yourself. LOL, I accept my viewpoint is based on religion and proven by science. You aren't man enough to accept your viewpoint is religious also. One day you may grow up.

eg8r

Qtec

02-10-2012, 06:24 AM

Religion is belief DESPITE the facts.

You claim there is a Creator<u> but you cannot provide one single iota of proof!</u>

When someone points out the flaws in what you believe, by using facts, you go go into denial.

The Catholic Church said the Earth [and man] were the centre of the Universe. Some 'scientist' said, 'eh that's not exactly true' and showed them why not.

How did that turn out?

What you want to do is turn back time. 'Lets go back to the 1800s when our myths prevailed.'